Political and Legal Influences

The political situation. The political relations between a firm’s country of headquarters (or other significant operations) and another one may, through no fault of the firm’s, become a major issue. For example, oil companies which invested in Iraq or Libya became victims of these countries’ misconduct that led to bans on trade. Similarly, American firms may be disliked in parts of Latin America or Iran where the U.S. either had a colonial history or supported unpopular leaders such as the former shah.

Certain issues in the political environment are particularly significant. Some countries, such as Russia, have relatively unstable governments, whose policies may change dramatically if new leaders come to power by democratic or other means. Some countries have little tradition of democracy, and thus it may be difficult to implement. For example, even though Russia is supposed to become a democratic country, the history of dictatorships by the communists and the czars has left country of corruption and strong influence of criminal elements.

Laws across borders. When laws of two countries differ, it may be possible in a contract to specify in advance which laws will apply, although this agreement may not be consistently enforceable. Alternatively, jurisdiction may be settled by treaties, and some governments, such as that of the U.S., often apply their laws to actions, such as anti-competitive behavior, perpetrated outside their borders (extra-territorial application). By the doctrine known as compulsion, a firm that violates U.S. law abroad may be able to claim as a defense that it was forced to do so by the local government; such violations must, however, be compelled—that they are merely legal or accepted in the host country is not sufficient.

The reality of legal systems. Some legal systems, such as that of the U.S., are relatively “transparent”—that is, the law tends to be what its plain meaning would suggest. In some countries, however, there are laws on the books which are not enforced (e.g., although Japan has antitrust laws similar to those of the U.S., collusion is openly tolerated). Further, the amount of discretion left to government officials tends to vary. In Japan, through the doctrine of administrative guidance, great latitude is left to government officials, who effectively make up the laws.

One serious problem in some countries is a limited access to the legal systems as a means to redress grievances against other parties. While the U.S. may rely excessively on lawsuits, the inability to effectively hold contractual partners to their agreement tends to inhibit business deals. In many jurisdictions, pre-trial discovery is limited, making it difficult to make a case against a firm whose internal documents would reveal guilt. This is one reason why personal relationships in some cultures are considered more significant than in the U.S.—since enforcing contracts may be difficult, you must be sure in advance that you can trust the other party.

Legal systems of the World. There are four main approaches to law across the World, with some differences within each:

Common law, the system in effect in the U.S., is based on a legal tradition of precedent. Each case that raises new issues is considered on its own merits, and then becomes a precedent for future decisions on that same issue. Although the legislature can override judicial decisions by changing the law or passing specific standards through legislation, reasonable court decisions tend to stand by default.

Code law, which is common in Europe, gives considerably shorter leeway to judges, who are charged with “matching” specific laws to situations—they cannot come up with innovative solutions when new issues such as patentability of biotechnology come up. There are also certain differences in standards. For example, in the U.S. a supplier whose factory is hit with a strike is expected to deliver on provisions of a contract, while in code law this responsibility may be nullified by such an “act of God.”

Islamic law is based on the teachings of the Koran, which puts forward mandates such as a prohibition of usury, or excessive interest rates. This has led some Islamic countries to ban interest entirely; in others, it may be tolerated within reason. Islamic law is ultimately based on the need to please God, so “getting around” the law is generally not acceptable. Attorneys may be consulted about what might please God rather than what is an explicit requirements of the government.

Socialist law is based on the premise that “the government is always right” and typically has not developed a sophisticated framework of contracts (you do what the governments tells you to do) or intellectual property protection (royalties are unwarranted since the government ultimately owns everything). Former communist countries such as those of Eastern Europe and Russia are trying to advance their legal systems to accommodate issues in a free market.

U.S. laws of particular interest to firms doing business abroad.

Anti-trust. U.S. antitrust laws are generally enforced in U.S. courts even if the alleged transgression occurred outside U.S. jurisdiction. For example, if two Japanese firms collude to limit the World supply of VCRs, they may be sued by the U.S. government (or injured third parties) in U.S. courts, and may have their U.S. assets seized.

The Foreign Corrupt Influences Actcame about as Congress was upset with U.S. firms’ bribery of foreign officials. Although most if not all countries ban the payment of bribes, such laws are widely flaunted in many countries, and it is often useful to pay a bribe to get foreign government officials to act favorably. Firms engaging in this behavior, even if it takes place entirely outside the U.S., can be prosecuted in U.S. courts, and many executives have served long prison sentences for giving in to temptation. In contrast, in the past some European firms could actually deduct the cost of foreign bribes from their taxes! There are some gray areas here—it may be legal to pay certain “tips” –known as “facilitating payments”—to low level government workers in some countries who rely on such payments as part of their salary so long as these payments are intended only to speed up actions that would be taken anyway. For example, it may be acceptable to give a reasonable (not large) facilitating payment to get customs workers to process a shipment faster, but it would not be legal to pay these individuals to change the classification of a product into one that carries a lower tariff.

Anti-boycott laws. Many Arab countries maintain a boycott of Israel, and foreigners that want to do business with them may be asked to join in this boycott by stopping any deals they do with Israel and certifying that they do not trade with that country. It is illegal for U.S. firms to make this certification even if they have not dropped any actual deals with Israel to get a deal with boycotters.

Trading With the Enemy. It is illegal for U.S. firms to trade with certain countries that are viewed to be hostile to the U.S.—e.g., Libya and Iraq.